High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 11 P&H CK 0081

Vikram @ Khadd vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 November 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hari Pal Verma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 49658 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 265 words

Hari Pal Verma, J

Present petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.375 dated 16.04.2017 under Sections 379-A and 411 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines Gurgaon.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not only falsely been implicated in the present case, rather number of other cases have been planted against him.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gaj Raj, submits that apart from the fact that about 5-6 cases have been registered against the petitioner in the State of Haryana, he has been found involved in as many as '161' cases registered at various police stations in Delhi and majority of the cases have been filed under Sections 379 and 392 IPC and under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. He has produced a list of such cases registered/pending/decided against the petitioner. He further submits that though the petitioner had approached learned Sessions Judge for the relief claimed in this petition, however, the bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.03.2018.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the application seeking regular bail was withdrawn by the petitioner from the Court of learned Sessions Judge and there are about 161 cases either registered/pending/decided against the petitioner, this Court finds that in order to protect the victims like the complainant from the clutches of such person, he does not deserves to be admitted on bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.